J.G. Chitre, J.

Heard Shri A.K. Sethi, Counsel for the petitioner Shri A. M. K. Bargat, counsel for the respondent No. 1 Opponent. No. 2 does not contest.

This revision petition is heard finally on request of both the Counsel appearing for contesting litigantS.

Shri A.K. Sethi. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the loan granted to petitioner was at Indore, the documents in respect of said loan were also executed at Indore and the petitioner resides at Indore. The loan was obtained from branch of opponent No. 1 situated at Indore. Therefore, only the Inodre Civil Court is having jurisdiction to entertain suit in view of provisions of S. 20 of C.P.C.

Shri Sethi, also pointed out that the prayer clause of the plaint deals with prayer for refund of money and it also indicated that money should be refunded along with the interest and, therefore, though the properly which has been mortgaged is situated within the jurisdiction of Ratlam Court, Ratlam Civil Court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

He made a grievance that learned trial Court did not consider this important fact of the mailer and committed the error of law in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner disputing the jurisdiction of the Court. He submitted that said order be reversed as it is illegal.

Replying to it, Shri PM Bargal, Counsel for opponent No. 1 submittal that the impugned order is correct, proper and legal because the property which has been mortaged is situated within the jurisdiction of Civil Court, Ratlam and therefore. Court has rightly considered the issue in controversy in view of provisions of S. 16 of the CPC.

S. 16 of C.P.C. reads as -

subject to the peruniary or other lisiations prescribed by any law suits -

(a) for the recovery of immovable property with or without rent or profitS.

(b) for the partition of immovable property,

(c) for foreclosure, sale or redemption in the case of a mortgage of or charge upon immovable property,

(d) for the determination of any other right to or interest in immovable property,

(e) for conversation for wrong to immovable property.

(f) for the recovery of movable property actually under distrait or attachment.

shall be instituted in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate.

S. 20 of CPC reads as-

Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction -

(a) the defendent, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carried on business, or personally works for gain; or.

(b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gains, provided that in such case either the leave of the Court is given, or the defendants who do not reside, or carry on business, or personally work for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution, or

(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.

The jurisdiction is to be decided by considering the averments made in the plaint. In the plaint it has been well indicated that said loan was granted by mortgaging the property which is situated within jurisdiction of Ratalm Civil Court. The plaint also shows that in addition to prayer of refund of loan amount, the plaint deals with prayer of redemption of mortgage.

S. 16 provides that - subject to pecuniary or other limitations prescribed by any law suits (c) for foreclosure rule or redemption in the case of a mortgage of or charge upon immovable property, shall be instituted in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate.

It is pertinent to note that S. 20 starts with "subject to the limitations aforesaid". Therefore, when S. 16 has provided that when the suit is in respect of foreclosure, sale or redemption in the case of mortgage of charge upon immovable property, the suit shall be instituted in the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate.

As the provision has been adequately made by S. 16, the operations of all provisions of S. 20 are not relevant so far as the cases like present matter, are concerned. In such cases the court within whose jurisdiction the property which has been mortgaged is situate, is having the jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit.

The trial Court has taken the same view, which I do not find anyway improper, incorrect or illegal.

Thus, revision petition stands dismissed, C.C. today.